May 02, 2006

Correction

I need to post a correction. I would have done so as an update to the original post, but I didn’t realize I erred until it was too late. So I’m putting it right here at the top of the main page where it won’t be buried.

I have Palestinian friends who say things I don’t like at all. They say they want to destroy Israel, that it has no right to exist.

Except that’s not what she said. She and I were hanging out socially in a bar. I was not formally interviewing her, as I formally interviewed these guys. So I wrote down a few key things she said after I got back to my hotel room.

What she actually said is that (some of) her Palestinian friends wish Israel would disappear, not that they want to destroy it.

The distinction seems subtle. The first version is active, the second is passive. That seemingly subtle distinction, though, puts her friends dramatically at odds with Hamas. She explained it to me in an email:

I told you that I have Palestinian friends who are angry at Israel, who wish it would disappear (and we all wish things in our hearts, while knowing they won't happen; I'm sure lots of Israelis wish the Palestinians would just disappear, too) and who long for a one-state solution. Sometimes they say ignorant things against Israel, and once a Palestinian cameraman told me that he wished I could express some empathy for the suicide bombers (I couldn't). That does not mean he supports the suicide bombers. He doesn't, and he told me so explicitly. I do not have any Palestinian friends who wish actively for Israel's destruction. All of them condemn the suicide bombers. They might not like that Israel exists, but they have come to terms with its existence. What they want is an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Oh, and when I told you that those friends love me, I also told you that I love them. ;) These are friends who call me to express sympathy when there's a suicide bombing in Israel, or who have gone to a lot of trouble to help me get interviews with Palestinian politicians. They never let me pay for my meals when I meet them at cafes in Ramallah, they take time off work to drive me around and introduce me to people and they invite me freely into their homes. They are almost all journalists.

On the other hand, I have met and spoke to Hamas activists - which is a very weird experience, especially because they know I'm Israeli and they speak to me in Hebrew. I mean, they're supposed to want to destroy me, but they are always courteous - even hospitable. That's the cognitive dissonance that makes me differentiate between rhetoric and reality. I don't trust Hamas, of course, and they are not my friends. I never forget about the suicide bombings for which they are responsible. But I know some of those people. I know it's weird, but I do. And so do lots of other Israeli journalists, by the way.

She got piled on in my comments section, surely in part because I misquoted her. I apologize to everyone.

Lisa is a friend, so I'm doubly sorry and hereby apologize to her twice.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at May 2, 2006 11:25 AM

Comments

Michael, this is why your reporting is infinitely better than that of major news outlets. Imagine trying to get a correction of that length on a corrections page or anything else for that matter.

I agree with you, Mantis. Not only was this a page one top notch apology, but Michael gave background information. I didn't pile on Lisa, because I know many Arabs, not Palestinians who really do want Israel to be destroyed. Most Palestinians I know are Christians, so i am not exactly sure how they feel about the state of Israel or the Palestinian Authority...all I know, is that they aren't THERE anymore, which says alot.

Good for you, Michael. These distinctions are important and they work both ways. Many, if not most ,Israelis wish they did not have to deal with the Palestinians. After all their lives would be better without the other. But that is not the same as wanting to destroy the other side. Nor does it mean you hate the other people. Extremists ignore these distinctions willfully.

I don't see the difference really. While "destroy" is a more active word than "disappear," it is patently clear to anyone that the only way Israel would "disappear" is if it (and its Jewish inhabitants) were destroyed. States don't evaporate into thin air just like that. I am quite sure Lisa's Palestinian friends are aware of that.

So I don't see how her friends could mean anything but destruction of Israel. Considering the outcome of the recent elections in Palestinian territories, the feeling seems to be a prevalent one.

Thank you, Michael, for doing more than just correcting your last post. You explained the subtle differences in expressions that often sail right over the top of our American heads, thanks to our "Flat out, bold faced, tell-it-like-it-is" way of speaking, while we miss the subtle nuances found in other parts of the world. I rather like our way, but understanding theirs makes the world a better place.

I don't think Lisa is a "useful idiot" -- rather, more a risk-seeking martyr potential. A Hero. Did you know at least two other Chinese women had stood in front of tanks -- and were run over? No pictures; but also heroes.

Lisa might well be the one person who can stop the tanks, er, Palestinian bombers. I fear for her, I'm afraid the Palestinian culture isn't ready to stop.

I think Israel needs to have a new policy: take land for terror. For each rocket attack, put some West Bank Palestinians on a bus into Gaza and take their land; claim new borders. Put the blame on the Palestinians, and on Hamas, and on the EU for not supporting Palestinian Free Speech.

I also think Israel should claim an "equal" right to return for Jews who unjustly expelled from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc., after 1948 -- and transfer those rights to the Palestinians.

But it will be personal contacts, like Lisa is making, that will help peace finally grow. After Palestine accepts Israel; but prolly the Palestinians have to become civilized enough to accept Free Speech and Free Religion.

I don't think officially speaking any of them want to kill Jews as such. But it is reasonable to assume that if they had the power large amounts of Israeis would have been slaughtered in the passion of war.

Destruction of Israel means to most Israelis the end of the Jewish nation-state, which means any of the options above except the two state solution. Very few Israelis support a bi-national state. And only a handful of ultra-religious think that it is better when Jews are a minority under Arab/muslim rule.

Good going, Michael! You did right. I'm hoping that Duchifas, reading the other comments, can see how "disappear" and "destroy" can be different in an important way: All of us have found some situation in our lives which we devoutly wished was 'different'--Given that the comments to Lisa were probably made in Hebrew, and the inexactitude of translation, it may well be, as Lisa suggests, that the intent of the speaker really is more benign than a first hearing/reading might suggest to us.

I can see how these two words can be different in a legal opinion written by a nitpicking legal scholar. But the fact of the matter is that Palestinians elected into office an organization whose raison d’etre is Israel’s destruction. I don’t think that the Palestinians had a collective case of amnesia on election day and suddenly forgot what Hamas stood for. [Yes, yes, financial transparency and anti-corruption. So they voted for financially responsible mass murderers.] The Palestinians were very well aware of what path they were choosing when they voted for Hamas, and they voted for them in rather large numbers. That’s why, given the general outlook of Palestinian society, I have a hard time reading any benign meanings into wishes for Israel’s disappearance.

That said, I do applaud Michael for making a conspicuous correction, and I'm looking forward to more stories, the writing and content here is top notch.

Michael it would be great if you could also get some perspectives from the religious Zionist/orthodox community, as that would provide another interesting insight into Israel's current realities. I've found in the past that what you hear in Tel Aviv and Judea/Samaria communities can be worlds apart.

I am going to attempt to write about this intelligently without writing a doctoral thesis (and I am terribly busy at work.) Doing so will require that I generalize and summarize a lot. So please do not jump to conclusions and be forgiving.

On the other hand, I have met and spoke to Hamas activists - which is a very weird experience, especially because they know I'm Israeli and they speak to me in Hebrew. I mean, they're supposed to want to destroy me, but they are always courteous - even hospitable. That's the cognitive dissonance that makes me differentiate between rhetoric and reality. I don't trust Hamas, of course, and they are not my friends. I never forget about the suicide bombings for which they are responsible.

I find the idea that this causes cognitive dissonance to be troubling. In this, if for no other reason, we can find a good example in Hamas. Too many people these days think that they need to be rude to disagree, that one cannot be courteous to an enemy without moral stain or taint, that in denunciation, name calling, and incivility one somehow shows that superiority over one's opponent. Too many make a virtue out of the vice or rudeness.

Let me show you some different viewpoints:

The book of Jude in the Bible contains the following passage:

"Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!' But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed."

In the American civil war, the soldiers of the two sides would often meet not in battle but to trade goods and stories. In fact, a soldier once warned the other side about a surprise attack because the other side had been letting his troops gather food in the land between. He knew that they would think they were gathering food and thought that it would be attacking under false pretenses.

In World War I, the enemy soldier, German, British, and French celebrated Christmas together. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

In the second two cases, the people they were being friendly with had killed their friends and typically would attempt to kill them in a few days. Everyone understood this was the case, but people were willing to still be polite and attentive to the enemy today. Looking out across the spectrum, I see too many people who think that George Bush or Bill Clinton is the enemy. Guess what? Even if what the propose is terrible policy for the United States and might cause untold suffering. Both presidents, just like the members of Congress, are sincerely trying to do the right thing. They may be political opponents and causing the ruin of the nation, and if so, then we should vigorously oppose them, but that does not require rudeness.

J&P,
With a polite respect between enemies comes the option of debate and agreement with a possible compromise.

Generally, in any conflict, the average citizen may be open to positive debate and understanding.

For those in positions of power, debate is not an option because they are usually long addicted to wealth and power and have too much invested. A life of total indulgence and control. Opium and Oil. Addictive indeed.

The stakes are simply too high for them to risk debates.

Generally, people of one group do not hate the people of the next group all that much. It is the leaders with huge vested interests who co-opt their group and whip up the level of hatred.

The web sites of both sides that list all the faults of the enemy group are there because the leaders encourage it.

The web sites that encourage little children to become walking bombs are not the product of children*s minds. And not of their loving parents either. [I know, some parents with vested interests would say otherwise].

Trouble is, when stubborn leaders clash in war. It is the citizen who is killed.

You should put a little note in your original article so that people who came from a perma-link know that the quote was inaccurate. I can't tell you how refreshing it is that you post your corrections boldly and at length on the front page rather than slipping cryptically-worded corrections onto page 2.

Lisa is just echoing Juan Cole, that apologist for Shiite Islamism, that claims the president of Iran simply wishes that the state of Israel to disappear-evaporate, on its own accord. Cole goes to the length of mistranslating Ahmadinejad, to prove his case.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/

Well, after reading the original quote in Farsi, I can attest that the president did emphatically mean "Israel must be wiped (made to disappear) off the face of history."

I wonder to what extent Lisa is influenced by personal subjective considerations of middle eastern hospitality, favoritism, kindness to strangers, foreigner curiosity factor, and other personal cultural drama, which cultural relativist westerners (you know, the kind that want to go topless among Bedouins, unaware of long fossilized and unreformed Islamic values) have a hard time fathoming past.

To apply personal subjective experience to a communal Muslim reality that calls for the elimination of dissent and criticism, enslavement of women, and subjugation of minorities, and to be oblivious to such realities and oppression, and its implications for Israelis in any solution to the conflict, is a mighty exercise in self-deception.

Lisa: That does not mean he supports the suicide bombers. He doesn't, and he told me so explicitly. I do not have any Palestinian friends who wish actively for Israel's destruction. All of them condemn the suicide bombers.

Where exactly do the proposals at Camp David 2 (in July 2000), and later at Taba (in early 2001) fit into all of this? (Or is it simply a whole lot easier to totally ignore them---to airbrush them out of existence or to reject them as anything meaningful---as seems to have been the case?)

So did Lisa's friends vote for Fatah instead of Hamas, or who, exactly, did they vote for?
hmm, I'll ask on her site, too, but in a place of real choice voting, which choice is made becomes significant.

What I observe around me is more frequently intellectual and emotional immaturity. I see people who think they are better than other people because of their enlightened opinions. Indeed, some think that they are better than other people because of the facts they believe, which if you think about is absurd. Too often, others who disagree are seen not only as opponents but as threats to one's self esteem. It is all very childish--expressing disagreement by calling name and throwing a temper tantrum. It has gotten so bad that some people think that the only authentic way to disagree is to be disrespectful.

My observations, however, have pretty much only taken place in America and Europe. A different dynamic may very well be at work in Palestine. And you have given some evidence that this is the case.

I wonder, though, whether Lisa's experience of cognitive dissonance was caused more by what I described or what you described. After all, she is a child of the west and, like me, would most likely be using her observations and experiences to interpret the situation.

I wanted to point out that Hamas may very well be polite while considering her a mortal enemy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is terribly academic. Having been to Israel over a dozen times and lived there for extended periods, including living with Palestinians, I find Lisa "of a type" -- it matters not that Hamas is polite to you, they don't care about you and would surely kill you if it served their purposes -- instead, in order to serve their purposes -- they want you to communicate something to the outside world. It is not very hard to comprehend.

Mostly though, the notion that large amounts of Palestinians are ready for a two-state solution and accept Israel as an established fact goes against the last 13 years of hard experience. The fact that Lisa knows some people who may think otherwise is quite beside the point.

While it appears that we agree on the underlying issue, I would not be so hard on Lisa. It is always difficult to do objective analysis when one is the subject of the analysis--when someone has a stake in the outcome and when it is an emotional or primordial issue. Although a few rise above it to varying degrees, everyone is subject to this problem. So we learn that Lisa is merely human as her analysis is colored by her hopes and fears. I doubt any of us in the same situation would do much better. After all, we do not let judges be judges in their own cases even when we think them terribly honest and smart. We all have blind spots.

It is no so much that you have better eyes but that you are in a better position to see.

The idea of wishing Isreal to disappear is not a terrible notion in the world of realpolitic. Of course if wishes were horse turds we would all be s__theads. We can all blame Woodrow Wilson for this mess. If Hitler and the final solution never occured, Jews would still be happy in Europe and the middle east would be a backwater of the world run by the Turks... maybe not so bad for us.

Horst, That*s a wishful what-if concept. Somehow it seems there may be a chance that complexity would creep in there sonner or later.

In the real present, we now have this notty little problem. What do you suggest here, and why?

The people of Iran are a patriotic group too. They want to be Iranian more than American but they had their elections hi-jacked by the Clerics and Almondjeans.

Now they can*t speak out much because that means living in a cell or worse.

Confusing though, is the fact that the Clerics just released two major dissident writers. Yet they snuff people for being Christian.

In any case MadMud and the Clerics are building Nuke concentrator capacity.

We are justified in precision bombing that Nuke capacity. The intent to vaporize Israel was clearly stated, after all.

Four or five days notice to folks in the target areas could diminish human loss to a minimum. Especially as very few people live over or near those underground Nuke infrastructures. [admit I'm guessing here].

Trouble with that approach is the galvanized Muslem protest that it will create through Pakistan, Syria, Itaq and through Hizbollah, Hamas and Lebanon, not to mention Egypt and parts of Turkey.

It would be interesting to learn the pros and cons of a pre-emtive strike to the Nuke capacity in Iran. Guess we lose Syria too.

With some days of pre-strike warning so that people could move well out of the way ,
The question is; How much crucial Nuke equipment can you move out of harm*s way in a couple of days. TG

Michael, just thought you'd like to know that your website is banned/blocked in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). I keep getting a 'FORBIDDEN' page each time I try to login. You must be doing something right.

TG:"In the real present, we now have this notty little problem. What do you suggest here, and why?"

And there is the rub.

I believe isolation is the best of a slew of bad options. Until the islamic world can police it's own, they cannot be expected to join in the civilized world. We cannot push or prod them,, change must be from within the region. Like an addict who must face his own demons and admit his own problem before cleaning up.

This can only be accomplished by getting off of middle east oil and paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline derived from tar sand, oil shale and coal with a whole lot of nuke thrown in. For Isreal, they need a missle defense system. This "solution" won't fly politically until the region has a nuke exchange, millions are vaporized and the oil production is neutered.

Perpetual Refugee: Michael, just thought you'd like to know that your website is banned/blocked in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). I keep getting a 'FORBIDDEN' page each time I try to login. You must be doing something right.

Two things.

1) The UAE is an ally of the United States. Getting banned there is not evidence that I'm doing something right. Getting banned in Syria or Iran might be evidence, though.

2) I'm not banned in the UAE. The computer you're using is accidentally caught up in my anti-spam system. It happens once in a while. If I knew the IP address, I could fix it.

In 1960, during a joint press conference with then French President Charles De Gaulle, David Ben Gurion, Israel's then prime minister stated that France was Israel's greatest friend. At that moment, De Gaulle interrupted him abruptly, asserting that France has no friends, just interests.

This statement summarizes much of French foreign policy. It certainly applies to the French relationship with Hizbullah. Indeed, there has been a noticeable recent change in France's attitudes vis-à-vis Hizbullah to such an extent that France's stance on the Lebanese Shia organization now seems almost identical to the American one. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether France and the United States can work together effectively on the problem of Hizbullah.

The French and American experiences in Lebanon have been quite similar in many ways, particularly when it comes to Hizbullah. The Party of God.

(Hizbullah) is considered a terrorist group by much of the Western world, though not by France or by any Arab country. It was created in 1982, (in part) to expel foreign forces from Lebanon—i.e. the Israeli forces then occupying southern Lebanon and the Italian, French and American forces present in Beirut under a UN peacekeeping mandate.

As a result, relations between France, the U.S. and Hizbullah got off to a very bad start.

In April 1983, Hizbullah targeted French soldiers with a rocket attack, although they did not cause any casualties and attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people and injuring more than 120. In October 1983, things got even worse when Hizbullah bombed nearly simultaneously, the French and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in Beirut in October 1983, killing 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers.

In November 1983, in retaliation for the deadly October attack on its soldiers, France sent fighter jets to bomb Hizbullah's camp in Baalbek. The U.S. response to Hizbullah's attack was more timid: some shelling from the battleship USS New Jersey at hostile positions beyond Beirut. It appears that then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger scrapped a mission to hit Hizbullah's positions with more force.

In December 1983, Hizbullah attacked French soldiers in South Lebanon, killing ten. This time the French did not retaliate and in 1984 French and U.S. troops left Lebanon for good—undoubtedly to Hizbullah's great satisfaction.